Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Portable Source Gear › Clip+'s Normal EQ is not flat?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Clip+'s Normal EQ is not flat? - Page 7

post #91 of 105

It's no wonder you're confused about neutrality since you have never heard of the Canadian National Research Council work on acoustics in the 70s and 80s that influenced the entire audio industry, spawning renowned Canadian speaker makers like Paradigm and Energy. Google still exists, you know. So maybe you shouldn't go around calling people "absurd" and talking about "speaking volumes about your technical expertise" when the ignorance actually is coming from your side.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by JaZZ View Post

Originally Posted by ventilator View Post

It's not a crude definition at all. It's actually a very sophisticated definition based on the acoustical research of the Canadian National Research Council in the 70s and 80s, which first quantified the elements of good sound related to frequency, dispersion, low distortion, etc.
 

 

What?

 

 

There's nothing "absurd" in that at all. +4 is an increase in volume over true zero (the "Normal" setting is not true zero, as we know and as the measurements prove). So the only question is whether on the Sansa products +4 is an ACTUAL increase of +4 from true zero, or whether Sansa calibrated true zero to be +4 - which as I said and believe seems unlikely.

 

But regardless of any semantics or terminology, the reported measurement results of xnor prove that +4 across the board increases volume over what is likely true zero, which potentially therefore also increases distortion, and regardless of distortion is not an accurate representation of the source material anyway. It therefore should be obvious to any so-called (or self-declared) "audiophile" that from the standpoint of true neutrality, +4 is to that extent undesirable.


«True zero» is a useless hypothetical term with no value. And there's no reason for the signal to have higher distortion from higher gain in the digital domain. It's rather the opposite, in that the lowered gain for EQ headroom might come with lower bit depth, but this scenario doesn't necessarily apply.

 


Clip+'s Normal EQ isn't flat...

 

...is definitely proven wrong by the measurements. I think there's nothing more to add.
.

 


True zero has a definite value as a term in this situation, because sansa's "Normal" setting is not at true zero, while a lot of people are being confused into thinking it is.

 

The measurements show that Sansa's "Normal" is an equivalent volume to +4, which likely adds distortion over true zero, and which therefore isn't flat. A distorted signal isn't flat.

 

A signal isn't "flat" just because all the frequencies are set to the same value. Is +99 flat, too? Not quite. There will be all kinds of distortion in that case way beyond what the frequency graph looks like for true zero flat. So it's not the same as zero, and therefore it's not really flat. The measurements prove you are wrong.

post #92 of 105

 

Originally Posted by ventilator View Post

It's no wonder you're confused about neutrality since you have never heard of the Canadian National Research Council work on acoustics in the 70s and 80s that influenced the entire audio industry, spawning renowned Canadian speaker makers like Paradigm and Energy. Google still exists, you know. So maybe you shouldn't go around calling people "absurd" and talking about "speaking volumes about your technical expertise" when the ignorance actually is coming from your side.

 

While I don't doubt that there is such a thing as the Canadian National Research Council and their work is of some value, it's obscure which of your statements gets support form their studies.


 

True zero has a definite value as a term in this situation, because sansa's "Normal" setting is not at true zero, while a lot of people are being confused into thinking it is.

 

The measurements show that Sansa's "Normal" is an equivalent volume to +4, which likely adds distortion over true zero, and which therefore isn't flat. A distorted signal isn't flat.

 

A signal isn't "flat" just because all the frequencies are set to the same value. Is +99 flat, too? Not quite. There will be all kinds of distortion in that case way beyond what the frequency graph looks like for true zero flat. So it's not the same as zero, and therefore it's not really flat. The measurements prove you are wrong.


Where in the graphs do you see harmonic-distortion data?

 

Your pretension that the Normal setting is higher than your so-called zero is as speculative and unlikely as the coupled distortion scenario. Note that in the digital domain higher gain doesn't mean higher distortion. In fact distortion is not present at all in the digital domain (apart from clipping). Moreover harmonic distortion doesn't express itself in the frequency response and therefore doesn't affect the «flatness».

 

I hope you get it now!

.


Edited by JaZZ - 7/13/10 at 8:28am
post #93 of 105
Quote:
Originally Posted by JaZZ View Post

 

Originally Posted by ventilator View Post

It's no wonder you're confused about neutrality since you have never heard of the Canadian National Research Council work on acoustics in the 70s and 80s that influenced the entire audio industry, spawning renowned Canadian speaker makers like Paradigm and Energy. Google still exists, you know. So maybe you shouldn't go around calling people "absurd" and talking about "speaking volumes about your technical expertise" when the ignorance actually is coming from your side.

 

While I don't doubt that there is such a thing as the Canadian National Research Council and their work is of some value, it's obscure which of your statements gets support form their studies.


 

True zero has a definite value as a term in this situation, because sansa's "Normal" setting is not at true zero, while a lot of people are being confused into thinking it is.

 

The measurements show that Sansa's "Normal" is an equivalent volume to +4, which likely adds distortion over true zero, and which therefore isn't flat. A distorted signal isn't flat.

 

A signal isn't "flat" just because all the frequencies are set to the same value. Is +99 flat, too? Not quite. There will be all kinds of distortion in that case way beyond what the frequency graph looks like for true zero flat. So it's not the same as zero, and therefore it's not really flat. The measurements prove you are wrong.


Where in the graphs do you see harmonic-distortion data?

 

Your pretension that the Normal setting is higher than your so-called zero is as speculative and unlikely as the coupled distortion scenario. Note that in the digital domain higher gain doesn't mean higher distortion. In fact distortion is not present at all in the digital domain. Moreover harmonic distortion doesn't express itself in the frequency response and therefore doesn't affect the «flatness».

 

I hope you get it now!

.


It's not speculation, it's fact. The guy who did the measurements said that the volume of the "Normal" setting was basically the same as the +4 setting. Is the +4 setting louder or quieter than the +1, +2, and +3 settings? Louder. Therefore, Normal is also louder than +1, +2, and +3. And as most people know, zero is below even +1, so it's also louder than zero. That means it's not zero, that it's been artificially boosted in some manner, which is not how the artist intended it to sound.

 

Not having heard of the Canadian Research Council is pretty pathetic, actually. Their acoustic studies and the results they found from them pretty much has been what has been driving the world of hi fi and audiophilia since they started their work. The ideas of neutrality, flat frequency response, wide dispersion didn't even really exist in practical terms before them. So it's pretty pathetic to talk about someone else's alleged lack of "technical expertise" when you haven't even heard of the CNRC.

post #94 of 105

For those who are as in the dark as jazz appears to be, here are a couple of quick random links on CNRC from some speaker manufacturers:

 

"The National Research Council (NRC) is the home of ground-breaking psycho-acoustical research that has become the standard by which leading loudspeaker manufacturers measure sound reproduction."

 

http://www.axiomaudio.com/NRC.html

http://audioguydfw.com/manufacturers/energy_speakers.aspx

 

post #95 of 105

I give up...

 

As stated in an earlier post: You're a hopeless case. (BTW, the linked articles have nothing to do with our topic.)

.

post #96 of 105
Quote:
Originally Posted by JaZZ View Post

I give up...

 

As stated in an earlier post: You're a hopeless case. (BTW, the linked articles have nothing to do with our topic.)

.


Sure they do, as the concepts of flat frequency response and distortion still obviously apply.

 

You're actually a hopeless case, apparently not even capable of understanding that a +4 boost of an audio signal across the board could introduce distortion, at the speaker/headphone level if nothing else. And that therefore it's not truly flat in the correct sense of flat at zero, but that it's artificially boosted.

 

I notice that you can't answer the facts, though - which are that xnor found that the volume of the Normal setting was equivalent to the +4 setting, which by definition is not zero. Unless Sansa counterintuitively calibrated +4 to zero, which at least you can admit doesn't make much sense.

post #97 of 105

 

Originally Posted by ventilator View Post


Sure they do, as the concepts of flat frequency response and distortion still obviously apply.

 

You're actually a hopeless case, apparently not even capable of understanding that a +4 boost of an audio signal across the board could introduce distortion, at the speaker/headphone level if nothing else. And that therefore it's not truly flat in the correct sense of flat at zero, but that it's artificially boosted.

 

I notice that you can't answer the facts, though - which are that xnor found that the volume of the Normal setting was equivalent to the +4 setting, which by definition is not zero. Unless Sansa counterintuitively calibrated +4 to zero, which at least you can admit doesn't make much sense.

 

As explained, harmonic distortion doesn't exist in the digital domain, so +4 or –4 doesn't matter for signal accuracy. Harmonic distortion is just in your head.
.

post #98 of 105

So headphones are "digital" and don't distort? Wow, I guess I did learn something new today.
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by JaZZ View Post

 

 

As explained, harmonic distortion doesn't exist in the digital domain, so +4 or –4 doesn't matter for signal accuracy. Harmonic distortion is just in your head.
.


 

post #99 of 105
Quote:
Originally Posted by ventilator View Post

It's not speculation, it's fact. The guy who did the measurements said that the volume of the "Normal" setting was basically the same as the +4 setting. Is the +4 setting louder or quieter than the +1, +2, and +3 settings? Louder. Therefore, Normal is also louder than +1, +2, and +3. And as most people know, zero is below even +1, so it's also louder than zero. That means it's not zero, that it's been artificially boosted in some manner, which is not how the artist intended it to sound.

 

It's fact that you are confused. As stated a hundred times before, as soon as you touch the EQ sliders there will be around 4.5 dB attenuation, as headroom to prevent clipping if you turn the sliders up.

I thought that it's pretty clear what is going on after posting my measurements... Your conclusion is illogical³.

post #100 of 105
Quote:
Originally Posted by xnor View Post

 

It's fact that you are confused. As stated a hundred times before, as soon as you touch the EQ sliders there will be around 4.5 dB attenuation, as headroom to prevent clipping if you turn the sliders up.

I thought that it's pretty clear what is going on after posting my measurements... Your conclusion is illogical³.


Right, it attenuates from +4 down to zero, plus or minus 1n on the slider you adjusted. As I've pointed out many times.

post #101 of 105
Originally Posted by ventilator View Post

So headphones are "digital" and don't distort? Wow, I guess I did learn something new today.


Hhmmm......  Yeah, you get me thinking!  
.

post #102 of 105
Quote:
Originally Posted by xnor View Post

 

It's fact that you are confused. As stated a hundred times before, as soon as you touch the EQ sliders there will be around 4.5 dB attenuation, as headroom to prevent clipping if you turn the sliders up.

I thought that it's pretty clear what is going on after posting my measurements... Your conclusion is illogical³.

Yes -- for whatever the reason, which you may be correct -- the occurance of the downward attenuation is real and can clearly be heard in the Fuze.

 

A cease-fire of the snide comments can now commence. 
 

post #103 of 105

If you put all the sliders +4 its not flat - thats been measured (its sortof flat but wavey since you are boosting certain fequencies with a specific width). ~~~~~~

 

If you have the setting at NORMAL its flat - thats been measured.  ----------------

 

If you set any of the sliders above or below 0, you get an overall ATTENUATION of around 4 db. ________

 

Why is this so hard to understand?!

post #104 of 105

Guys!  It's all clearly defined in the article I wrote last year:

 

Development of Ultra Measured Bandwidth Frequency Undulattion for Clipping KHz Sounds

post #105 of 105


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by DKaz View Post

Guys!  It's all clearly defined in the article I wrote last year:

 

Development of Ultra Measured Bandwidth Frequency Undulattion for Clipping KHz Sounds


 

And for the guys that are arguing,   


Edited by High_Q - 7/15/10 at 4:41pm
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Portable Source Gear
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Portable Source Gear › Clip+'s Normal EQ is not flat?